hetookmetoamovie wrote:After the Civil War/War of Party Aggression I'd vote for Bill and Hand on the Party Party presidential ticket. You two could then appoint the rest of us ITT to your cabinet or cush judgeships. Let us all cast our un(der)employment fears aside.

just to prove that i do study n shit ive been reviewing rc 2day n ive noticed that on some of the inference/MSS Qs TCR is sometimes framed in the negative so like "x does NOT contribute to y" or something along those lines just kind of a pattern i been noticing

hetookmetoamovie wrote:After the Civil War/War of Party Aggression I'd vote for Bill and Hand on the Party Party presidential ticket. You two could then appoint the rest of us ITT to your cabinet or cush judgeships. Let us all cast our un(der)employment fears aside.

Party Party presidential ticket. LOL.

pretty much a crucial spot there fogs

We'll reserve a seat on the 9th circuit for Movie and one on the 2nd for Sfogs

hetookmetoamovie wrote:After the Civil War/War of Party Aggression I'd vote for Bill and Hand on the Party Party presidential ticket. You two could then appoint the rest of us ITT to your cabinet or cush judgeships. Let us all cast our un(der)employment fears aside.

Party Party presidential ticket. LOL.

pretty much a crucial spot there fogs

We'll reserve a seat on the 9th circuit for Movie and one on the 2nd for Sfogs

BillPackets wrote:just to prove that i do study n shit ive been reviewing rc 2day n ive noticed that on some of the inference/MSS Qs TCR is sometimes framed in the negative so like "x does NOT contribute to y" or something along those lines just kind of a pattern i been noticing

I haven't noticed this.

Anyway ever feel like they get delayed response from drilling? Like my brain doesn't process things for a week afterward.

If a ARGUMENT says that "Doctors always treat disease x the wrong way, and Timmy had disease X, doctors will treat Timmy for disease X the wrong way", and the argument asks for a flaw, could you say that the argument assumes that the future will be like the past? what if doctors get smarter or better technology or something?

Or, since the stimulus says that doctors always treat this disease the wrong way- and that is what the argument says- that is the way it is, and we do not question the truth of premises.

Louis1127 wrote:Thanks for your willingness to help on my last question, everyone.

I should have been more clear in my question.

If a ARGUMENT says that "Doctors always treat disease x the wrong way, and Timmy had disease X, doctors will treat Timmy for disease X the wrong way", and the argument asks for a flaw, could you say that the argument assumes that the future will be like the past? what if doctors get smarter or better technology or something?

Or, since the stimulus says that doctors always treat this disease the wrong way- and that is what the argument says- that is the way it is, and we do not question the truth of premises.

Now I am leaning that it may be a flaw.

Either way, holy shit this is a morbid example I just made up.

No flaw. If it says "Doctors have always" then it would be the flaw you mentioned. But since doctors always dick up, they will dick up and kill Timmy, most certainly.

Louis1127 wrote:Thanks for your willingness to help on my last question, everyone.

I should have been more clear in my question.

If a ARGUMENT says that "Doctors always treat disease x the wrong way, and Timmy had disease X, doctors will treat Timmy for disease X the wrong way", and the argument asks for a flaw, could you say that the argument assumes that the future will be like the past? what if doctors get smarter or better technology or something?

Or, since the stimulus says that doctors always treat this disease the wrong way- and that is what the argument says- that is the way it is, and we do not question the truth of premises.

Now I am leaning that it may be a flaw.

Either way, holy shit this is a morbid example I just made up.

No flaw. If it says "Doctors have always" then it would be the flaw you mentioned. But since doctors always dick up, they will dick up and kill Timmy, most certainly.

The assumption is that Timmy is going to get medical attention... Timmy might know how fucked up those doctors are and just STAY HOME.

Louis1127 wrote:Thanks for your willingness to help on my last question, everyone.

I should have been more clear in my question.

If a ARGUMENT says that "Doctors always treat disease x the wrong way, and Timmy had disease X, doctors will treat Timmy for disease X the wrong way", and the argument asks for a flaw, could you say that the argument assumes that the future will be like the past? what if doctors get smarter or better technology or something?

Or, since the stimulus says that doctors always treat this disease the wrong way- and that is what the argument says- that is the way it is, and we do not question the truth of premises.

Now I am leaning that it may be a flaw.

Either way, holy shit this is a morbid example I just made up.

No flaw. If it says "Doctors have always" then it would be the flaw you mentioned. But since doctors always dick up, they will dick up and kill Timmy, most certainly.

i was w fogs im sure your use of "had" wasnt meant in any meaningful way but it affects your q

Louis1127 wrote:Thanks for your willingness to help on my last question, everyone.

I should have been more clear in my question.

If a ARGUMENT says that "Doctors always treat disease x the wrong way, and Timmy had disease X, doctors will treat Timmy for disease X the wrong way", and the argument asks for a flaw, could you say that the argument assumes that the future will be like the past? what if doctors get smarter or better technology or something?

Or, since the stimulus says that doctors always treat this disease the wrong way- and that is what the argument says- that is the way it is, and we do not question the truth of premises.

Now I am leaning that it may be a flaw.

Either way, holy shit this is a morbid example I just made up.

No flaw. If it says "Doctors have always" then it would be the flaw you mentioned. But since doctors always dick up, they will dick up and kill Timmy, most certainly.

The assumption is that Timmy is going to get medical attention... Timmy might know how fucked up those doctors are and just STAY HOME.

Oh shit, that would definitely be the flaw. I assumed the question included information as to Timmy being said patient of Drs. Dick. Just failed level 1 LR over here.

Louis1127 wrote:Thanks for your willingness to help on my last question, everyone.

I should have been more clear in my question.

If a ARGUMENT says that "Doctors always treat disease x the wrong way, and Timmy had disease X, doctors will treat Timmy for disease X the wrong way", and the argument asks for a flaw, could you say that the argument assumes that the future will be like the past? what if doctors get smarter or better technology or something?

Or, since the stimulus says that doctors always treat this disease the wrong way- and that is what the argument says- that is the way it is, and we do not question the truth of premises.

Now I am leaning that it may be a flaw.

Either way, holy shit this is a morbid example I just made up.

No flaw. If it says "Doctors have always" then it would be the flaw you mentioned. But since doctors always dick up, they will dick up and kill Timmy, most certainly.

The assumption is that Timmy is going to get medical attention... Timmy might know how fucked up those doctors are and just STAY HOME.

Oh shit, that would definitely be the flaw. I assumed the question included information as to Timmy being said patient of Drs. Dick. Just failed level 1 LR over here.

I have such bad anxiety. I'm becoming progressively more ridiculous, Schmel. It hit me this morning that I scored 170s when I did jumping jacks before the test. I did 30 the first time and 50 the second. I'm going to do 65 this time. Can you see me doing jump jacks before the LSAT on the 27th? It's probably going to happen.

Also, I bought a combination of four semi-precious stones to encourage clarity, concentration, and rational thinking. There is no way that I'm going to be able to fit all of those up my vagina, so I'm going to have to just put them in my gallon bag and hope the proctors don't look at me like I am a total nutcase.

sfoglia wrote:I have such bad anxiety. I'm becoming progressively more ridiculous, Schmel. It hit me this morning that I scored 170s when I did jumping jacks before the test. I did 30 the first time and 50 the second. I'm going to do 65 this time. Can you see me doing jump jacks before the LSAT on the 27th? It's probably going to happen.

Also, I bought a combination of four semi-precious stones to encourage clarity, concentration, and rational thinking. There is no way that I'm going to be able to fit all of those up my vagina, so I'm going to have to just put them in my gallon bag and hope the proctors don't look at me like I am a total nutcase.

I have such bad anxiety. I'm becoming progressively more ridiculous, Schmel. It hit me this morning that I scored 170s when I did jumping jacks before the test. I did 30 the first time and 50 the second. I'm going to do 65 this time. Can you see me doing jump jacks before the LSAT on the 27th? It's probably going to happen.

Also, I bought a combination of four semi-precious stones to encourage clarity, concentration, and rational thinking. There is no way that I'm going to be able to fit all of those up my vagina, so I'm going to have to just put them in my gallon bag and hope the proctors don't look at me like I am a total nutcase.